Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3] mem_access: sanitize code around sending vm_event request

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 04/08/16 08:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 04.08.16 at 08:36, <tamas.lengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On 03.08.16 at 20:41, <tamas.lengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> @@ -1846,11 +1846,15 @@ int hvm_hap_nested_page_fault(paddr_t gpa, 
>>>> unsigned long gla,
>>>>                  }
>>>>              }
>>>>
>>>> -            if ( p2m_mem_access_check(gpa, gla, npfec, &req_ptr) )
>>>> -            {
>>>> +            sync = p2m_mem_access_check(gpa, gla, npfec, &req_ptr);
>>>> +
>>>> +            if ( !sync )
>>>>                  fall_through = 1;
>>>> -            } else {
>>>> -                /* Rights not promoted, vcpu paused, work here is done */
>>>> +            else
>>>> +            {
>>>> +                /*
>>>> +                 * Rights not promoted (aka. sync event), work here is 
>>>> done
>>>> +                 */
>>>
>>> Comment style.
>>
>> Alright, you had an issue with the pre-existing comment style but you
>> also have an issue with this. What exactly is the issue here?
> 
> See ./CODING_STYLE: This is a single line comment, and what was
> and is missing is the full stop at the end.

Maybe we should have a larger discussion about this, but I think that
the insistence on having a full stop is going too far.  It has
absolutely zero effect on readability or legibility; it creates
literally zero additional value, and so cannot possibly be worth the
time it takes you to write the sentence, or even the electricity it
takes to send that sentence over the internet -- much less this coy sort
of "There's an unspecified problem with this comment" resulting in a
back-and-forth like this.

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel